Ep35. 為何環保撚不再做環保撚了🚬
唔知大家呢個禮拜過成點呢？上一集講學英文 ，好似大家都幾肉緊喎，睇嚟大家都好重視英文能力！今次等我同大家分享下一篇英文文章，佢喺美國環保嘅社交媒體圈子入面都幾多迴響。文章係上年2020年10月19日嘅作品，作者Elizabeth Cline，喺網上媒體Atmos嘅發佈，題目為「The Twilight of the Ethical Consumer」【1】。
「Twilight」意思係黃昏，又或者形容一個人或時代嘅晚期。簡單講下作者先，文章引起我嘅注意係因為幾年前我拋棄「快時尚」嘅啟蒙書就係佢寫架啦！當時我覺得自己點解無乜著衫嘅個人風格，於是我就去搵書睇下，過程中發現到呢本書《Overdressed》。書以美國為中心，解構時裝行業以前到依家嘅發展，其實對理解全球化、快時尚都好有幫助，同埋係記錄佢去唔同亞洲國家嘅所見所聞，加上好多資料搜集同分析，建議大家可以睇下！睇完唔敢擔保你會變咗fashionista，但係包保你會對自己嘅衫更加精挑細選，每件衫都講得出自己點解買、背後嘅故事等等。講返呢篇文章，一開頭作者就推翻哂自己一路以來嘅主張，佢話ethical consumer喺黃昏，就嚟冇喇！！所以當我睇到，我基本上好似覺得我一路以來嘅universe崩潰咗！同埋要講聲唔好意思，ethical consumer唔係直譯「環保撚」，呢個類似係clickbait啦，各位手下留情
佢話一直以來佢主張大家可以從消費入手，每一蚊都係改變制度嘅一票，成為一個ethical consumer。幾十年來，佢食素、買有機食物、唔買快時尚，甚至為有意識消費寫書。呢一種用消費令世界變得更好成為咗佢嘅identity。佢嘅轉捩點係喺肺炎席捲全球期間，好多快時尚嘅勞工咪又係一樣毫無保障？ My Ethical Consumption couldn’t protect Black and brown people from dying and getting critically ill in far higher percentages than white people during the pandemic. 我一路以來嘅努力冇保護到非白人族裔嘅權益。It hasn’t put a dent in climate change or plastic pollution. 完全冇幫輕過氣候變化同塑膠污染。 It couldn’t even protect retail workers, even those employed in “ethical” chain stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, who had to keep working as the virus spread often because they don’t earn enough money to stay home. 就算連身在美國一啲比較'ethical'嘅公司入面嘅勞工都幫唔到，佢哋仍然係因為冇錢而要喺疫情期間照常返工。（雖然我真係覺得佢有少少自視過高，因為我唔會寄望一個人可以喺十幾廿年改變到咁多嘢，但係我諗佢嘅frustration都係佢代表嘅一個群體嘅frustration。）簡單來講就係，搞咗咁耐，到有事嘅時候原來都仲係有咁多問題！！！
The pandemic has swept away so many illusions. Our societal problems, from the climate crisis and systemic racism to economic inequality, run so deep and down to the bone that we’ve had no choice but to face them. 佢話：「疫症令好多幻覺瞬間消失。我哋社會嘅問題，由氣候危機到制度上嘅種族歧視、到經濟嘅不公平嘅問題，原來係咁嚴重、咁深入制度，而一場疫症令我哋不得不面對呢啲不公。佢之後提到2010年一篇題目為《The Myth of the Ethical Consumer》嘅研究，裡面講到消費者通常會overstate，誇大自己對環保、社會公義嘅支持，於是商界就開始改變marketing嘅訊息，然後市場上突然多咗好多呢啲所謂「ethical」嘅產品。Elizabeth話，佢唔知咁係因為我哋社會富裕咗，可以買多啲貴啲嘅產品，定係啲公司嘅marketing越來越聰明，但係《The Myth of the Ethical Consumer》【2】都講到，雖然消費者口講話要支持公平貿易、ethical products，但如果係貴啲嘅話，又或者係要犧牲少少功能，佢哋都唔會買。咁變咗到最尾，好多有份欺壓員工、傷害環境嘅公司都開始出一啲懶係CSR、懶係好啲嘅產品，消費者就打住幫助環境、社會嘅名號繼續幫襯呢啲有份剝削人同環境嘅大公司。
於是佢就問：究竟我哋幾時開始將改變社會嘅責任訴諸消費者嘅呢？好似擺明玩嘢喎，搞咗幾十年無咩進步！佢話：「Ethical Consumers are a byproduct of epic neoliberal economic changes that took place in the 1980s and 1990s.」佢提到Republicans、mass movements of the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War era，但基於我嘅認識唔太深，同埋唔係唔係呢段嘅重點，容許我跳過。咁重點係呢個neoliberalism話人嘅需要同埋社會問題嘅解決方法就係一個資本社會同自由巿場，而唔係政府、一個重視共同利益嘅公民社會（呢度想話佢個字本身係civil society，我睇過好似有好多種譯法同理解，大家可以睇返原文理解下），或者係集體行為。（Neoliberalism spread the mantra that human needs and even solutions to social problems are best met by the marketplace and by capitalism—not government, civil society, or collective action.）然後我哋放棄咗有力嘅環境監管，社會福利制度、工會，同埋忘記咗點樣世代以來用公共（而非私人、個人）嘅手法去推動改變。 （Out went strong environmental regulations, social welfare programs, labor unions, and, most crucially, our generations-long history and culture of how to make change through public rather than private means.）
係呢度作者提出咗一個新嘅字眼「consumer activist」對比文章一路描寫嘅「ethical consumer」。佢話其實一路以來消費者作為推動社會改變嘅力量其實好有用，亦都好成功！例如Rachel Carson喺1962年嘅《Silent Spring》指出好多化工公司亂咁用有毒嘅農藥，而佢所帶來嘅影響係好似2012年New York Times嘅文章【3】講，係50年嘅政商界對立：「One reason that today no single book on, say, climate change could have the influence that “Silent Spring” did, Souder argues, is the five decades of political fracturing that followed its publication.」佢知道自己嘅讀者係一班我哋而家所謂嘅師奶，「Carson was among the first environmentalists of the modern era to be charged with using “soft science” and with cherry-picking studies to suit her ideology.」而佢亦都用容易理解嘅例子去解釋農藥嘅害處。Rachel Carson所帶來嘅citizen protests示威亦都間接令EPA Environmental Protection Agency呢個政府部門成立。另外，Ralph Nader 1965年嘅書《Unsafe at Any Speed》針對美國嘅汽車公司嘅安全措施做得唔夠，置司機於危險之中，令到政府部門頒佈規例，強迫汽車公司一定要遵守安全標準，每架車都要有安全帶同airbag。再近似而家我哋做緊嘅嘢，就係Civil Rights movement利用Black Americans嘅消費力量（所謂“selective buying"同埋有組織嘅杯葛），去孤立支持種族歧視嘅商店。等等等等嘅例子。
咁點解以前得，而家唔得呢？作者話，以前同樣係consumer，但以前係consumer activists，而家只不過係ethical啲嘅消費者。其實大家做嘅嘢都係依靠消費力量，究竟中間發生咗咩事？Consumer activists同ethical consumers一樣，都會努力理解產品嘅來源、製造過程等等，但係大家嘅目標唔同。Consumer activists嘅目的係要商家同政府為自己嘅行為負責，佢哋對社會係有責任嘅；但係ethical consumers只係為咗買到一個好啲、ethical啲嘅產品就算嘞。佢舉另外一個例子，就係當我哋發現Big Tech嘅力量過大，引發私隱問題，我哋嘅第一反應係delete個app，或者唔用，而唔係要求政府規管佢哋嘅力量。
佢最尾都兜返，其實ethical consumer唔係咩都做唔到嘅，例如都間接令成個ethical and sustainable市場蓬勃啲，例如係佢嘅書，亦都令到一啲小公司成長，亦都令大家試多咗一啲比較sustainable & socially responsible嘅產品。但係佢話就咁以為已經足夠，係錯嘅。佢指出問題嘅核心係資本主義、商家缺乏規管，同埋弱咗嘅民主力量（unchecked corporate power, unregulated capitalism, and our weakened democracy）。最近好多偏向左定右嘅討論，我諗作者係偏左啦。佢唔係叫大家唔好做一個ethical consumer，而係why not both，成為一個consumer activist。而認清成為一個ethical consumer，買得起一個比較環保嘅產品並不見得你特別高尚，除非你承認一個好有錢、好多時間可以afford到一個好環保嘅生活模式嘅人係比窮人更加高尚啦。（雖然我唔覺得環保一定係要貴啲，個重點唔係呢度啦）
好喇咁呢篇好文共賞就去到呢到，作者講嘅嘢有道理嘅地方係：我哋必須要承認，一人嘅力量真係好細。姑勿論佢係左定右，純粹係一個「如何達到目的」嘅心態，其實如果要大規模嘅影響，始終都係要有制度嘅改變。但係你話點樣令到制度上有改變呢，又要分成係政策上改變，定商界自行改變。我會challenge嘅觀點係，究竟商界係咪唔會喺無政府嘅推動之下作出改變？係咪唔會因為消費者群情洶湧而作出改變？我覺得作者嘅論點好似將成件事嘅責任推落democrat vs republican，左同右嘅分野，可能就嚟大選咁所以加兩筆。同埋佢有講講下consumer activists vs ethical consumer又鬧消費者嘅表裡不一其實有啲模糊咗焦點。我哋需要考量作者嘅背景，佢呢篇文嘅前設係有民主政府，政府需要對人民負責，但係係一個極權或者政府on99嘅地方，與其要求政府帶領商界改變，倒不如直接要求商界改變。
好啦，我哋分析咗作者嘅觀點，亦都了解到佢嘅論據不足或唔可以應用喺香港嘅地方，咁點樣inform到我哋嘅行動呢？我嘅小總結係：好似我喺第22集都已經講過，一人嘅力量的確好細，但係我哋一人做事嘅目的係為咗令機構作出改變。大家一人做事，係要以多啲以感染、說服身邊嘅人、商業機構為目的，而唔係為咗自己高尚、正確啲。好似作者今日嘅tweet話齋：「Eco-guilt and fast fashion shaming is costing us activists. “If you feel like you’re not allowed to participate in the conversation because of the way you shop, then we’re losing a lot of people who would otherwise be involved in fixing problems.」我哋唔係要單向宣示自己嘅立場，而係要好似Rachel Carson咁，令到受眾容易接受個message。作為係一個商業機構工作嘅人，其實好多時我哋認識消費者渠道都好少，如果能夠有多啲feedback，都好。又或者可能行過一間coffee shop，都可以認識下對方，軟性地問下、推吓自攜杯等等。Again都係互相尊重最重要啦，尤其是環保嘅嘢好多時其實商家都慳到錢，至少我而家做緊果間公司係咁囉，我依家好努力咁喺自己嘅崗位推動環保啲嘅措施，令公司對環保呢個概念有更深嘅理解。其實公司都係人組成架姐！如果你想知多啲，可以DM我，大家分享下！你唔一定要令到佢哋即刻改變，marketing第一步係awareness，你將個議題植入佢哋個腦度，已經係第一步。但係我亦都要指出，marketing係會分rejectors or non-rejectors。如果你遇到一啲即刻落閘放狗嘅商家，咁佢哋係rejectors，可以move on。
【1】https://atmos.earth/ethical-consumerism/
【2】https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of-the-ethical-consumer-204 https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/management/business-ethics/myth-ethical-consumer?format=WW&isbn=9780521747554